On Sep 30, 2004, at 2:53 PM, ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
> I don't know enough
> about CRISP to comment, but if GEOPRIV is an example of a success due
> to
> having used a requirements document, well, all I can say is it is at
> best a
> very anomalous case. IMO the whole GEOPRIV effort was mismanaged
> dating back to
> its origins in the SPATIAL effort. (I also think almost all of the
> blame for
> this rests with the IESG and not the group itself, and since I was an
> IESG
> member at the time I include myself as a responsible party. But that's
> an
> entirely separate discussion not relevant to the matters at hand.)
I'm not sure what the point is here... that the IESG is at fault? That
certainly doesn't speak against the point I made: GEOPRIV spent a long
time in fundamental disagreement and finally quit wondering around
after they put their requirements in writing.
My point was that IMO the IESG in effect created a situation that made a
requirements document a necessity. Had the situation been handled differently I
believe that (a) GEOPRIV could have completed its work literally years sooner
and (b) A requirements document likely would not have been needed. And this is
why I called this an anomalous case and not a true requirements document
success story.
Ned